To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

The MAROON Vol. 65, No. 5 Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 September 26, 1986 State legislation tabled; highway funds to be cut By Hank Stuever Staff writer HOW OLD IS TOO YOUNG? Next Wednesday, Louisiana will pay for being one of the last states in the union where an 18-year-old can purchase an alcoholic drink. On that day, Louisiana will lose $15.2 million in federal highway aid for the 1986-87 fiscal year. These facts have local college students concerned, bar owners worried and state politicians confused and angered. In 1984, Congress passed a law saying that any state that did not raise its drinking age to 21 for all alcoholic beverages by Oct. 1, 1986 would lose 5 percent of its highway funding. The cut doubles in 1987 and again in 1988, meaning Louisiana would lose more than $60 million before 1989. For the state's residents and students aged 18-20, it could mean a different way of life. During the state Senate's 1986 session, a bill was introduced by Sen. Richard Neeson, D-Shreveport, to raise the drinking age to 21. At the same time, a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Reps. Margaret Lowenthal, D-Lake Charles, and James J. Donelon, R-Metairie. The House bill failed, but the Senate bill passed, 25- 12. From there, the Senate bill went to the House, where it failed in the last few days of the session. The 51-43 outcome was just two votes shy of a majority. The 1986 session adjourned, and the already-weakened Louisiana economy prepared to suffer another loss. Unless Gov. Edwin W. Edwards calls a special session, the drinking age will not be decided until the legislature's next regular session in April 1987. During the House session this summer, Donelon and Lowenthal's bill was amended to include a "grandfather clause," which would make the photo by Mary Degnan Unopposed SGA candidate protests procedure By Raul X. Resales, S.J. and Mary Caffrey Staff writers A student who ran as an unopposed candidate for freshman law representative has filed a thirteen-point complaint concerning election procedures with the Student Government Association's Court of Review. Wade P. Richard, law freshman, presented his complaint to SGA President David Kramer at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday. Richard protested the poor organization of the elections, lack of a detailed election code and actions by SGA Vice President Connie Kringas prior to the election. Richard pointed out that Kringas swore in two unopposed congresspersons-at-large and an unopposed business president but neglected to swear in several unopposed law school candidates. "What I'm trying to do is have the Court of Review uphold the right to vote," Richard said. "I want them to determine what value they will place on a person's right to vote and what respect the main campus will give to law school." Kringas defended her decision to swear in the three delegates who became automatic members of the Ways and Means committee. She explained that not all committee members could be present at certain times during the budget hearings. "Without them we would have had three people deciding all the budgets," she said. During the SGA meeting Tuesday, SGA President David Kramer was upset because so few members of congress volunteered to sit at the polls. Kringas said she had to leave the law school poll to attend class at one point, and she is not sure what time her replacement arrived. Kringas said this incident may explain the unmanned poll charge in Richard's complaint. Answering Richard's charge of unfair treatment to unopposed candidates, Kringas said initially there were four candidates for the position of law freshman representative. Kringas said she did not purposely overlook the law school candidates. At press time, Kringas said she had not spoken to Richard about his complaint that students had been denied the right to vote, and she said she did not understand his specific allegation. Richard explained that at various times during the scheduled hours of the election the law school polls were either closed completely or left unmanned with either the ballot box or the box and the ballots unattended. The Court of Review began hearing testimony on the complaint Thursday at 7 p.m. They have 72 hours after the time Richard filed his complaint to reach a decision. In addition to Richard, law freshmen Isidro Deßojas and James Dill and law upperclassmen Eileen Comiskey and Ann Novick were elected to congress. Jason Caniglia, Michael Kelly and Dartanian Thomas were elected freshman representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences. Dena Rodenbeck and Christi Watson will be in a runoff for the final position. Pat Long and Brian McGonegal were elected freshman business representatives and Michelle Freeman was elected freshman representative from the College of Music. Sexual harassment policy approved by Faculty Senate By Mary B. Cross Staff writer A long-delayed statement of university policy and procedure on handling complaints of sexual harassment was approved on Sept. 11 by the Faculty Senate. The senate approved the policy by an overwhelming majority. The policy was constructed by a 40- member Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Harassment. The committee, which includes faculty from all departments of the university, was created by the senate to revise the sexual harassment policy rejected last year because of its loose wording. The new statement is designed to meet three objectives: to protect the rights of someone subjected to sexual harassment; to protect the rights of someone accused of sexual harassment, and to protect the university from unnecessary litigation arising from sexual harassment cases. The policy statement reads as follows: "Loyola University of New Orleans, consistent with its Goals Statement and Character and Commitment Statement, fosters respect for the dignity and worth of all members of the Loyola community, and is committed to maintaining an educational and working environment free of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is immoral and illegal, and will not be tolerated. "Sexual harassment may occur within a variety of relationships. Some relationships involve unequal authority, as between supervisors to employees supervised; faculty members to students; residence hall See Drink/page 5 See Policy/page 7

Archival image is an 8-bit greyscale tiff that was scanned from microfilm at 300 dpi. The original file size was 1503.73 KB.

Transcript

The MAROON Vol. 65, No. 5 Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 September 26, 1986 State legislation tabled; highway funds to be cut By Hank Stuever Staff writer HOW OLD IS TOO YOUNG? Next Wednesday, Louisiana will pay for being one of the last states in the union where an 18-year-old can purchase an alcoholic drink. On that day, Louisiana will lose $15.2 million in federal highway aid for the 1986-87 fiscal year. These facts have local college students concerned, bar owners worried and state politicians confused and angered. In 1984, Congress passed a law saying that any state that did not raise its drinking age to 21 for all alcoholic beverages by Oct. 1, 1986 would lose 5 percent of its highway funding. The cut doubles in 1987 and again in 1988, meaning Louisiana would lose more than $60 million before 1989. For the state's residents and students aged 18-20, it could mean a different way of life. During the state Senate's 1986 session, a bill was introduced by Sen. Richard Neeson, D-Shreveport, to raise the drinking age to 21. At the same time, a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Reps. Margaret Lowenthal, D-Lake Charles, and James J. Donelon, R-Metairie. The House bill failed, but the Senate bill passed, 25- 12. From there, the Senate bill went to the House, where it failed in the last few days of the session. The 51-43 outcome was just two votes shy of a majority. The 1986 session adjourned, and the already-weakened Louisiana economy prepared to suffer another loss. Unless Gov. Edwin W. Edwards calls a special session, the drinking age will not be decided until the legislature's next regular session in April 1987. During the House session this summer, Donelon and Lowenthal's bill was amended to include a "grandfather clause," which would make the photo by Mary Degnan Unopposed SGA candidate protests procedure By Raul X. Resales, S.J. and Mary Caffrey Staff writers A student who ran as an unopposed candidate for freshman law representative has filed a thirteen-point complaint concerning election procedures with the Student Government Association's Court of Review. Wade P. Richard, law freshman, presented his complaint to SGA President David Kramer at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday. Richard protested the poor organization of the elections, lack of a detailed election code and actions by SGA Vice President Connie Kringas prior to the election. Richard pointed out that Kringas swore in two unopposed congresspersons-at-large and an unopposed business president but neglected to swear in several unopposed law school candidates. "What I'm trying to do is have the Court of Review uphold the right to vote," Richard said. "I want them to determine what value they will place on a person's right to vote and what respect the main campus will give to law school." Kringas defended her decision to swear in the three delegates who became automatic members of the Ways and Means committee. She explained that not all committee members could be present at certain times during the budget hearings. "Without them we would have had three people deciding all the budgets," she said. During the SGA meeting Tuesday, SGA President David Kramer was upset because so few members of congress volunteered to sit at the polls. Kringas said she had to leave the law school poll to attend class at one point, and she is not sure what time her replacement arrived. Kringas said this incident may explain the unmanned poll charge in Richard's complaint. Answering Richard's charge of unfair treatment to unopposed candidates, Kringas said initially there were four candidates for the position of law freshman representative. Kringas said she did not purposely overlook the law school candidates. At press time, Kringas said she had not spoken to Richard about his complaint that students had been denied the right to vote, and she said she did not understand his specific allegation. Richard explained that at various times during the scheduled hours of the election the law school polls were either closed completely or left unmanned with either the ballot box or the box and the ballots unattended. The Court of Review began hearing testimony on the complaint Thursday at 7 p.m. They have 72 hours after the time Richard filed his complaint to reach a decision. In addition to Richard, law freshmen Isidro Deßojas and James Dill and law upperclassmen Eileen Comiskey and Ann Novick were elected to congress. Jason Caniglia, Michael Kelly and Dartanian Thomas were elected freshman representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences. Dena Rodenbeck and Christi Watson will be in a runoff for the final position. Pat Long and Brian McGonegal were elected freshman business representatives and Michelle Freeman was elected freshman representative from the College of Music. Sexual harassment policy approved by Faculty Senate By Mary B. Cross Staff writer A long-delayed statement of university policy and procedure on handling complaints of sexual harassment was approved on Sept. 11 by the Faculty Senate. The senate approved the policy by an overwhelming majority. The policy was constructed by a 40- member Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Harassment. The committee, which includes faculty from all departments of the university, was created by the senate to revise the sexual harassment policy rejected last year because of its loose wording. The new statement is designed to meet three objectives: to protect the rights of someone subjected to sexual harassment; to protect the rights of someone accused of sexual harassment, and to protect the university from unnecessary litigation arising from sexual harassment cases. The policy statement reads as follows: "Loyola University of New Orleans, consistent with its Goals Statement and Character and Commitment Statement, fosters respect for the dignity and worth of all members of the Loyola community, and is committed to maintaining an educational and working environment free of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is immoral and illegal, and will not be tolerated. "Sexual harassment may occur within a variety of relationships. Some relationships involve unequal authority, as between supervisors to employees supervised; faculty members to students; residence hall See Drink/page 5 See Policy/page 7